Sanders and A New Perspective

(Part 2 - See Part: 1)

James Dunn was the first to employ the phrase ‘a new perspective on Paul’ which was picked up on by the system’s critics who began to refer to ‘the so-called New Perspective on Paul’. Thus the fruit of superb research received its very own catch phrase; sadly though the phrase "New Perspective on Paul" fails to do justice to what is actually at stake here. The New Perspective on Paul is not so much about Paul at all, at least not directly, rather it’s more about first century Judaism and only consequentially is it about Paul (though the implications may be staggering!); thus a better catch phrase, slogan or whatever may be ‘The New Perspective on First Century Judaism’.

The trouble maker who so tenaciously flipped the apple cart of New Testament scholarship upside down was E.P. Sanders in his work Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977). Prior to Sanders New Testament scholarship taught that Judaism from the Second Temple period to the Rabbinic period was a religion of works based salvation which Paul was confronting everywhere he went, thus central to Paul’s theology was a doctrine of Justification by faith apart from works of the law.

Sanders thesis, that which he seeks to prove, is that Judaism was not a works based religion contrary to popular scholarship, but rather, it was a grace based one! That Judaism (in its various forms) taught that they were saved by grace based on their election "in" Abraham and/or "in" Israel - i.e. God called Israel to be his (unmerited grace) apart from any works - and thus the real issue was not a type of legalism per se, but rather "the position of national superiority which Judaism had thought to claim on the basis of God’s choice of her" (N.T. Wright, Commentary on Colossians p.33).

Rabbinic Literature

Sanders book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism works backwards examining the period of time between 200 BC to AD 200 (p.1), first looking at the Rabbinic literature from AD 70 - AD 200, then looking at the Dead Sea Scrolls and finally at the Apocryphal literature beginning in 200 BC. After laying the historical context of Judaism (p.33-426) he then takes a look at how this revealed knowledge of the Judaism Paul knew affects what Paul said and consequently how we should interpret him (p.431-552).

What Everyone Presupposed:

Sanders begins by revealing what current (at least then) thoughts of first century Judaism taught in contrast to Paul and spends much time naming scholars and their generally accepted (if somewhat tweaked) views on the matter - an exercise I will gladly spare you the tears of boredom of. (When I refer to "popular scholarship" hereafter I mean scholarship which Sanders is combating, i.e. prior to 1977 - it appears Sanders work has literally swayed an entire generation of scholars, the more I read the more I discover that even those who reject the 'New Perspective on Paul' none-the-less have been persuaded by Sanders research into Second Temple Period Judaism: that it was a religion of grace - See Heyler, The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John, p.264)

According to popular scholarship, "the Jewish view… was that righteousness is earned by works, while Paul’s was that righteousness was a gift from God received by faith" (p.2). Furthermore, "Judaism was the antithesis [opposite] of Christianity. Judaism was a legalistic religion… [while] Christianity is based on faith rather than works" (p.33). In the Jewish religion (according to the popular thought) righteousness was earned (works) by two ways, 1. keeping the Law - which no one could do perfectly - and 2. doing ‘good works’ such as giving money to the poor (p.37). One could also atone for your sins in various ways such as sacrifices, the rituals associated with the Day of Atonement, doing ‘good deeds’ and the such, and doing these things rendered previous sins as if they never happened. But each act of atonement removed only each sin atoned for, thus there could be sins not atoned for which will 'weigh' over one’s head on the day of judgment (p. 37-38).

This last point is significant because the popular belief regarding the first century Jewish doctrine of salvation was one of weighing "sins" over against "good deeds" (or merits verses demerits): "Every fulfillment of a commandment earns for the Israelite a merit, while every transgression earns a debt or guilt. God keeps a record of both merits and demerits. When a mans merits are more numerous he is considered righteous, but when transgressions outnumber merits he is considered wicked… Man does not know how his reckoning with God stands" [until judgement day] (p.43) which results in insecurity or pride - the man who is unsure has great fear, while the other man who believes he lived a superbly righteous life exhibits great pride (consider here Paul’s statement, "not by works lest any man boast").

I want to observe with Sanders one more curious fact; "one must note in particular the projection on to Judaism of the view which Protestants find most objectionable in Roman Catholicism: the existence of a treasury of merits established by supererogation. We have here the retrojection of the Protestant-Catholic debate into ancient history, with Judaism taking the roll of Catholicism and Christianity the roll of Lutheranism" (p.57). To this Heyler acknowledges that "there is much truth in [this] critique" (Heyler, Witness, p.265)

So to summarize what NT scholars have believed regarding the Judaism Paul knew (i.e. Judaism between 200 BC and AD 200):

· It was basically the opposite of Christianity in its legalistic teaching.
· It was a religion which taught salvation by works of the law.
· Since no one could keep the law perfectly it was based on a ‘weighing’ system.
· God kept record.
· If your obedient acts 'out-weighted' your sins you were righteous.
· If your sins 'out-weighted' your obedience you were wicked.
· You could add ‘merits’ to your life by doing good deeds (feeding the poor), or making atonement by one of the means prescribed in the scriptures.
· Thus Judaism was a legalistic religion.

Sanders bluntly concludes: "one of the intentions of the present chapter, to put the matter clearly, is to destroy that view" (p.59, italics added). His goal is to "destroy" the pervading misconception outlined above regarding Rabbinic Judaism: that it was not a legalistic religion, that it did not depend on works of the law to be saved, that ‘good works’ and ‘acts of atonement’ did not store up merits in ones favor and that one was not eternally judged based on a weighing system!


On the flip coin - and many may find this interesting - Sanders argues for an understanding of Judaism that (as stated) is not legalistic but rather holds to a sense of national pride and segregation as a result of their electing in the grace of God! The Law in Judaism, therefore, was a barrier that separated the elect (Israel) from the Gentiles - these include laws of cleanliness, circumcision and meal fellowship; the consequences of this view on the book of Galations may be much and worth considering!

So then, what did Rabbinic Judaism teach on these matters? I’ll attempt to answer that question and summarize Sanders arguments in the next blog.

Tell then
Derek